Talk:Bra

Archives
29 August 2003 − 27 October 2006

Revisions

I think this page needs quite a lot of work. I have written quite a bit on this subject from the perspectives of women's health and women's studies, and have started to incorporate some of that material. Inevitably there will be controversy, and as pointed out above, we need to be careful about consistency with other related articles, as well as being balanced. I have given more voice to feminist theory and writing, than was evident before, and incorporated current scientific research. In addition I have expanded the source material. This is obviously very much a 'work in progress', but it is a topic that has become a big issue in women's studies, since bras represent far more than an item of clothing but a whole icon of both women's body image, and status.

I am also trying to improve the citation styles. Frankly it is difficult to determine whether the material already posted here was copied from other internet sites, or the other way around. I have tried some rather more authoritative sources. I am drawing on qualitative research done with women's groups about their relationships with bras, or not. I will eventually get to a literature review on the biomedical science. Mgoodyear 21:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're doing a fantastic job. This article is really coming along. Thanks for your hard work. =) —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have continued to trace the evolution of 'support' and restraint of the breast.Mgoodyear 15:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume it is inevitable that a subject like this is prone to vandalism Mgoodyear 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many articles get vandalized, many times by people making tests or just goofing off. At any rate, it's simple enough to revert vandalism. The page history makes vandalism both easy to spot and correct. Generally the edit note rvv for revert vandalism is used to edits reverting vandalism. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Fetish Bra

Aiden: would you kindly provide a definition for 'fetish bra'?Mgoodyear 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In view of your history of contributions, to date, I am deleting itMgoodyear 22:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias or Slant

I think it approperiate to share some discussion from my talk page, although ideally I should review the entire history of this article at some stage.

A question has been raised, quite reasonably, as to whether the article has become unbalanced, and this requires some examination. Someone started a question asking if bras were necessary, and elswhere there is a section on culture that makes reference to the rejection of bras by feminists.

While the bra seems like a simple garment, understanding requires a thorough review of its history, rationale, culture and relation to the breast, its structure and engineering, and a thorough knowledge of breast biology, and the relationship between a woman and her breasts, which has occupied a fair bit of my time over a number of years.

The bra has been controversial since its inception, and discussions about bras are nearly as convoluted as those about breasts. It is ctually difficult to write a 'balanced', if that means for and against brs. Thatis because while many women appear attached to their bras, under the surface their is a deep tension, a dichotomy of atraction and repulsion. Their is an enormous amount of misinformation, particularly on the internet, and a fair share of mythology. A review of the literature and the research fails to demonstrate any need, reducing it to a fashion accessory. The health professions are fairly united in stating that there is no necessity for bras, they can cause a lot of problems, but despite claims of serious health problems including cancer, it is difficult to substantiate this, although less serious problems seem to occur frequently.

As Dr Susan Love, one of the most influential writers on women's health, puts it, it is a matter of choice. But that choice should be informed. Qualitative research suggests that women wer bras because they think they have to, but are generally much happier when they are not.

My strategy in being 'encyclopaedic' was to examine critically the evolution of garments that surround the breasts, refer to the relevant material on breast biology, and the evidence for and against bras, and review the scientific literature on bras. This all has to be interpreted against the cultural significance of bras which is complex and related to the social status of the breast as icon.

The article could be split up I suppose. Oh, and by the way, I am a physician in women's health and women's studies. Mgoodyear 04:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I have recast the section on are bra necessary as a debate. The problem is that like cigarettes it is difficult to create a balanced article when the only 'for' statements are some opinions in fashion articles, and some advertisements. All the more scholarly work is aginst bras. Therefore it comes down to informed choice, not that 100 years of tradition is going to change overnight. Mgoodyear 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is on Bras, as an Item of clothing; whither or not they should be is another question altogether and pointless for Wikipedia's article on this _item_ if you which to create an article on what you think is importent and relevent to the topic, then you should create such an article, however, it also has to be with out bias, which, IMO, this article no longer is.-142.177.121.25 00:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence of bras

Spute writes:

"It is a fact that most women in western society (90% at a guess?) wear bras"

That may or may not be true, accurate statistics are hard to come by, and the manufacturers and retailers would like you to believe that. The number has fluctuated considerably since the modern br of the 1930s was introduced, and depends on where you live and what circles you move in, and whether you mean continuous wear or have ever worn.

However the critical word is Western in n Encyclopaedia that should be universal. Although there are massive marketing campaigns the bra has not penetrated much outside major urban centres in developing countries. There are websites asking women to donate bras to send to Africa where women have never known the benefits of a bra (but, see below).

A Harvard cross cultural study correlating bra size with breast cancer, had to abandon the Japanese part of the study, because they simply could not find many women who actually owned a bra.

We had an international health convention here recently, and obtained funding to bring women from a number of African countries here, and they were billeted with local delegates' families. Naturally they were interested in Western clothes, but when they saw a bra they were astounded, a Muslim woman from Somalia thought they were some sort of "industrialized torture device". Eventually they asked if they could take examples home to show their friends how oppressed and uncivilised Western women were. The local women were equally intrigued at this new perspective, and gladly donated their bras in this educational exchange. Interestingly the only study on bras and their efects on breast shape, which was from Japan, also concluded that they were a form of torture similar to Chinese foot binding. Interestingly that study showed that the bra forced the breasts apart and downwards, the exact opposite of what many women believe they are supposed to do.

We have to be careful about making cultural assumptions, which are themselves a form of oppression. Mgoodyear 17:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A good point yes, and i think the article has continued to improve. It's much more balanced than even a couple of days ago. Spute 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate Images

Gruk
I removed your changes. The peephole bra information and picture added nothing, and was not appropriate. if you want the 1888 patent included you wil need to provide some context - it does not relate to the text. I note that your contributions to Wikipedia to date have been largely of a sexual nature, requiring removal. Mgoodyear 22:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

and stop putting it back again Mgoodyear 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Germaine Greer

Somebody (DXRAW) does not like Greer. Hmm, I'll think about that. Maybe replace in lower key. Mgoodyear 05:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re removal by Honeymane of reference to Greer, as 'out of context'. Greer, whether you like her or not, is an icon of feminist thinking about bras, and is a metaphor for "bra burning". I chose that quote because it neatly sandwiched the argument, 'a ludicrous invention' was used to justify the 60s revolt, but I chose to complete the quotation further down, in which she argues for choice, which is of course central to balance. Removing half the quotation is definitely NPOV! What was the article that was read?

eg:
1. "You don’t have to be some kind of fierce Germaine Greer Seventies-style bra-burning feminist ." http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/unknown/viewarticle.aspx?id=299050
2. Just as it is easy for men to paint women as bra burning Germaine Greer clones. http://menz.org.nz/menz-issues/october-1996/
3. Mary Spongberg. If she's so great, how come so many pigs dig her? Germaine Greer and the malestream press. Women's History Review Volume 2, Number 3 / September 1993
4. "when feminism was mentioned at all , it was usually in the same breath as ‘ bra - burning ’ or a cursory mention of the antics of Germaine Greer" Natasha Campo, '‘Having it all’ or ‘had enough’? Blaming Feminism in the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, 1980–2004'. J Australian Studies Issue 84 2005.
5. "claims that feminists burnt their bras at the 1968 Miss America beauty pageant. In fact this never happened. Inspired by a comment made by Germaine Greer, about 400 feminists outside the pageant threw bras, along with other items symbolic of female oppression, like eyelash curlers, into a dustbin." Hiley, Victoria. The Independent Jue 4 2005.

Mgoodyear 19:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the Article located on wikipedia. Like I said, you where quoting out of context, and in context is doesn't really suppport your arguement, it's mostly neutral; So don't use the quote out of context.Honeymane^{is watching} 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, based on the totality of Greer's canon not just the Wikipedia article, I believe it is very much in context. However this is now moot. Incidentally removing the braburning reduces the overall amount of 'negative' material and should help to allay concerns about POV

Mgoodyear 02:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

In the end it was easier to just delete this section completely, and incorporate it into history, rather than culture, which allowed a lot of redundancy to be eliminated.
Mgoodyear 22:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Project Plan

Marketing: kids, third world
Culture: feminine icon or denial of femininity. Opinion leaders, entertainment industry, what women want, barriers to social change in fashion, bra alternatives, the nipple factor, bounce, relation to top freedom and nudity
Biomedical research (complete to date)
Trivia: uses for dead bras
Outsourcing: In progress
Stubbing of glossary terms not in Wiki: in progress
Rewrite Size and fit and reorganise; ?outsource parts
Mgoodyear 15:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not being flippant, but the article could do with more pics. The text is kind of thick :) - Francis Tyers · 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you have any that are allowable on this site. It also strikes me that historically the use of illustrations tends to be contentious around here and related topics. Mgoodyear 18:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not at the moment, there are a couple more on commons, but they aren't great quality. I'm keeping my eye out for some more though. - Francis Tyers · 19:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Globalise

Are the measurements/fittings for bras global? Is there an ISO standard (or equivalent?) - Francis Tyers · 16:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I should have read on. It is mentioned, but this should be made more clear in the section "Bra sizes". - Francis Tyers · 16:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If the bra sizes section appears muddled, it is because it is muddled. Especially after I pointed out all the problems on top of the original desciption. It is inconsistent, impractical, irrational and illogical. The section is probably ripe for a rewrite now that most of the critical articles have been added. Mgoodyear 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Someone removed the headings, I think it is much neater and more useful with headings Mgoodyear 23:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Recent edits have lead to a lack of NPOV on this article, including, but not limited to, the Essay and a long 'history' of the social impact of bras. Also, this article is far too long.-142.177.121.25 00:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be more helpful if you stated what you meant by NPOV. Neutrality on issues that are controversial does not require one to distort the facts. One can't write a 'neutral' article on whether the earth is flat. If there are verifiable facts that support a point of view that you think is missing, then please provide them, and they can be incorporated.Mgoodyear 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is no an outlet for personal views, a bra is an article of clothing, not a Women's study of it's impact, nor is a place to make essaical statements. The essay is a good example of the article that is NPOV. Any essay is an opinion piece, something must be provend. It's not what needs to be added, it's what needs to be removed, as in, all of it. The essay, the 'history' the culture (which the essay links too depite being on the same page) are all pointless and extra information, and most of it seems relativly bias.

The article is on Bras, the article of clothing, what it is, what it does, it's history (as in, when it was created, not information from 1000 BC) and extra relivent informaion. What you have created is a very long, very bias article. if anything, the original Article should be restored.Honeymane 03:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

you very first edit on this article was insiteful, but you have kept adding and adding, and now the article is hardly useful or NPOV.Honeymane 03:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

While there may be NPOV issues, I hardly think that justifies reverting this article back to the way it was before. Mgoodyear has completely turned this article around, adding a lot of very detailed and important information concerning this garment's history, cultural status, and health implications. Please, don't bite the newcomers. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The article was well writen, to the point, and precise. If Mgoodyear felt that more information should be added that is fine, but not to the point of burying the article under irrelevant pieces of information. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Honeymane 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. First, I am not convinced that placing articles of clothing in their historical and social context is irrelevant, especially considering that the large body of scholarly articles on this aspect. Although perhaps an argument could be made for separate articles on the strictly functional aspects as opposed to the social. Secondly the fact that a colleague of mine holds particular views (soapbox reference above) does not preclude them from being able to write objectively, the world would be a dull place otherwise. Mr Honeymane should perhaps declare his interests too, since I see he his a regular contributor to Bras Suck.Mgoodyear 11:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you see historical 'contexts' for clothing items such as boots? In fact, the only article I've seen with such 'historical contexts' is the Undergrament article, which is on a whole sub group of clothing, but not on a type of item, and even then, it's not uber long. I maybe a regular on Bras suck Mgoodyear, but I know a poorly writen, overly bias article when I see one. You have failed to write objectively about the bras; one does not use terms like 'we' or 'our' in formal writing, unless really, really necassary. You've used dozens of weasel words, NPOV, unsourced statements, and over loaded the article with information which is not about bras, as an article of clothing. And like I said, wikipedia is not a place to 'get the message' out.Honeymane 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that Honeymane has strong feelings about this. In fact this subject is bound to be contentious (a point made strongly in the literature) because it is inextricably tied to things like breasts, body image, sexuality, and the role of women in society. A scan of articles on bras shows that providing a historical background is almost universal (eg Stephanie King in 'The Independent'). Actually I do see a historical context in boots, as any student of Fashion and Costume would testify. The length is an issue. I was considering moving some sections, such as 'types of bras' or even 'history' to separate articles, and briefly summarising them here. I am still having difficulty seeing the bias, and I am anxiously awaiting sources that Honeymane feels have been overlooked. I am quite happy to consider rephrasing 'weasel words' if someone could perhaps identify them. The sources are now considerably more than when I discovered the article. If there are specific statements that cause problems, again. please identify them, and I will try and add a source. I will look for First Person references and rephrase them. The information about or not about bras is debatable. I agree Wikipedia is not a place for getting messages out, but a resource. I should add I am an academic and the choice of information is based on qualitative research into 'frequently asked questions' to provide at least a starting point (ironically I should say that we do not accept Wikipedia as a source in student papers, other than qualitatively).

Honeymane overstates my contributions. The basic structure was there long before I even discovered the article, including history back to Minoans, 'Are bras necessary', and Culture. I reorganised it with more headings and fleshed it out. Honeymane has also criticised this article elsewhere (bras suck), and his points there are also worth considering. However he has confused me with a colleague of mine who collaborated on this with me. He calls this "a mess of feminist history". Actually it isn't, it alludes to feminist points of view for balance, but is not written from a feminist perspective which would be very different. If it has a slant it is 'pro-choice', because that is congruent with both medical (Dr Love) and feminist (Dr Greer) interpretation. If I understand Honeymane correctly, there is a concern that the article raises questions about the usefulness of bras, that is again based on qualitative research using women's groups and opinion leaders (most recently the Chicago Tribune, October 27th 2006). Those questions are out there and should not be ignored. It is actually difficult to find cogent 'pro-bra' sources. In summary there is the manufacture's lterature, which we would expect to be biased (but there are negative comments even there), fashion magazines which refer to bras as articles of allure and providing figure, and religious literature. The latter does not really so much address bras per se, as modesty, and the necessity of covering the breasts.

He continues, "random information about other things that are not bras" I assume refers to context. "random sentiences on how people disagree with whatever's been stated" I think refers to an attempt to maintain balance by stating that there are differences of opinion, which is true. "everyother edit has been just haphazart adding" - actually, the process was systematically working through a large pile of published articles and books, to see if they were represented in the overall presentation. "And no, many people have not 'contributed' to it" - well it has been around for a few years I think, and I see a lot of names there. My contributions represent those derived from discussions with colleagues and other experts in the field.

Again, thank you for the suggestions, which will be taken into consideration, and which I am sure will improve the article in the long run. There are bound to be disagreements on this topicMgoodyear 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Note on use of first person: The word 'we' appeared 3 times, once in a quote, which was left alone, and twice in the phrase 'as we know it', which were deleted. The word 'I' does not appear, based on word searches. Mgoodyear 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note, I think Mgoodyear has done an excellent job, but it does require some cleanup. The "Are they necessary?" section needs to be slightly trimmed down and re-ordered to make it look less like an essay. It certainly shouldn't have a "Conclusion". The "Are they harmful?" section should be merged into a larger section on "Health issues". I think all the information is good, but restructuring is needed. - Francis Tyers · 14:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have responded to criticism about length, by outsourcing one section (Types of bras). Incidentally some of us have day jobs! Also some of us are on learning curves as to how things are done around here! Mgoodyear 14:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Took out and toned down 'conclusion', but I do think frequent subheadings are essential for readibility. Mgoodyear 14:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Toned down wording of headings, strengthened the 'for' case. 'Conclusion' now reads 'Summary'. Mgoodyear 15:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I made a major edit a few mins ago, but I forgot to include the edit summary; I removed the essay, and a number of repeated information, I hope to write up a better History summary, althought it's not needed, as we're linking to the article in question to being with. One of the deleted parts was the 'problems' section, as the information had been repeated in the above sections. If I have deleted something that you feel importent, then add it to the preexisting headings, such as Health risks. etc. Once I find the template, I think this article should be added to the 'drive' for improvement or whatever it's called, so better experts then I can help reorganize the article and such.Honeymane 22:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, but I've reverted your changes. You removed a lot of good information and also your rewrite of the introduction, I felt, was not as good as what Mgoodyear had. I think it'd be best if you raised your concerns on this talk page before unilaterally making changes to the article. Mgoodyear seems quite willing to listen to what others have to say and make the appropriate changes herself. Again, my apologies for butting heads with you on this. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed alot of unnessicary information and decreased the size of the article so it was more readible. This article is not owned by 'Mgoodyear' I have the right, as must as anyone to edit the page; and sometimes, 'add' 'add' is not the correct way to write an article. I've tried to raise my 'concerns' but seeing as she is unable to see where the bias is in her writings I went and edited the article so it wasn't. If you felt it was lacking you should have reviewed the original 'good' document and added.

You've violated the rules about reverting pages, I made the edits in good faith, and to fix the article's biasness. luckly I have to text of my edit stored on my computer and can restore the text when I have the time, probably later tonight. While I think it's great that you are trying to improve articles, even the best grown trees require pruning. Honeymane 01:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm not going to edit war you over it. See Wikipedia:Reverting for an easier way to undo my changes, and consider leaving at least the intro alone. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Though some people believe in condensing the wikipedia into the smallest number of articles possible you may be benefitted by moving an extened article about the social implications and contentions of the Bra to a seperate article where it can be fully discussed and managed seperate from the rest. LordFenix 08:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is certinly under consideration Mgoodyear 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Small point. The section about bra-burning and bra-lessness should probably contain note of late incidents in which bra-lessness was used as a general protest (usually just a symbol of freedom) rather than a protest against the bra. And the article ends with "Unfortunately what gets lost in this rhetoric, and is more important, is that it became quite acceptable in the 1960s and 1970s to not wear a bra, and the fashion pendulum now appears to be swinging back to going 'braless' again" The use of the word unfortunately strikes me as NPOV, and the use of the pendulum metaphor may be out of place. The article about contreversy that immedeately follows it is just one line, the articles possibly have to be differently managed to avoid them being a single line. LordFenix 08:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have instances? I changed the wording as suggested. Not sure about your 'one line comment - that may have been a temporary editing problemMgoodyear 00:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article has gone too far in the direction of becoming a soapbox for the point of view that bras are evil. It's so far from NPOV at the moment i can't be bothered even getting to grips with how to make it reasonable. Sorry Mgoodyear, but I think you've gone too far (as i thought you might).Spute 19:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The article was unbalanced, which I corrected, factually. Bras are obviously not evil, nor do they carry health warnings. Many women love their bras, see Hoorah for the bra. However just as many hate them, and it is important that all of them have a factual point of reference. There is a lot of nonsense out there on the net about bras, we should be able to do better. One thing it is not,is a soapbox! This is based on years of research. --Mgoodyear 23:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If they are 'obviously not evil' why does the article imply they are? --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 02:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Honeymane, that's the impression you get from reading the article - "bras are a bad thing, some people wear them and like them, but they're wrong" - that's what i get from the article. I also agree that before Mgoodyear stepped in, the article was missing some information about negatives, but it's gone too far in one direction, and needs a lot of work to get it back to somehwere approaching a balance. Spute 11:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is my view on the POV aspect of the article. I think the section on the bra's long-term therapeutic benefits makes the point pretty well: such benefits have never been demonstrated, and not even the manufacturers are prepared to argue otherwise. I do think, though, that the article mitigates the benefits to be gained while performing particularly strenuous sports. I am less happy with the section on long-term health problems. The article goes to inordinate lengths to stress shoulder and back pain problems, but these are almost invariably due to the wrong size of bra being worn, as the Greenbaum paper makes clear.

The most questionable section of all, in medical terms, is the section entitled "Cancer". The words "the study was not controlled for other lifestyle factors", applied to any study of this kind, are damning. They call into question the basic competence both of the researcher and any of editor who publishes the results. (It seems not entirely irrelevant to state that the reference is a book, not an article in a medical journal) Then we have another study, whose results are qualified with the statement "this did not reach statistical significance". In plain English, this means that the study proved nothing. Given all the qualifications on this material, it seems reasonable to ask why it is there.

Finally there is the cultural dimension. The article is right to point to the various social pressures which influence a woman's decision whether or not to wear a bra. What is notably underplayed, to my eyes, is any consideration that the bra might be something a woman might actually choose to wear for the advantages it confers. "In the Western world about 90% of women wear bras". Assuming this to be true - and I see no reason to doubt it - the article must surely make some attempt to account for it. Reading the article as it stands, I think most people would be at a loss to do so. Are we to assume that in the 21st century the mass of women are so cowed by social pressures and advertising that they meekly do what is expected of them? Or can we give them some credit for freedom of choice? --Stephen Burnett 14:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, a very articulate answer. I agree that the cancer section was particularly poor, and have just edited it drastically. It's potentially very harmful to spread such nonsense in an encylopedia, so i'd tried to remove it all. Science which isn't statistically valid isn't science! Spute 19:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well done: it's fine to mention the book and the assertions which underly it, but given the unreliability of the source, I think the balance is about right. --Stephen Burnett 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical Note

I have printed out various versions since 2003. Some elements of history, and some degree of concern about the necessity of bras has actully been there from the start. The latter was mainly in the form of a reference to an external link, but Dr Susan Love has been there from an early time. The 'necessary' question was internalised in the Autumn of 2005. Hope that helps! Mgoodyear 15:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the History section could do with splitting out per Wikipedia:Summary style. The summary of the section should be about half the length. - Francis Tyers · 16:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Done (which certainly messes up your footnotes) Mgoodyear 20:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that does quite a lot for the readability of the article. Good call. I like the change. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Article layout

It seems to me that the article layout itself violates NPOV. The controversy over whether or not the brassiere is necessary and/or healthy comes before any of the history, elevating its importance. I think the article should be re-worked as follows:

• Etymology
• History
• Sizes
• Construction
• Types
• Culture

then the controversy, which is identified within as being related to the "Culture" section. Get the facts out there first, then deal with the greater social and medical implications. Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 16:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Seems reasonableMgoodyear 19:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Done Mgoodyear 20:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that is where part of the issue comes from, however, I'm still opposed to the 'essay' one does not make cases for or against something in a NPOV envorement, and I believe that the article would be better off without it. The health risk section is kept able, not the section of myalgia, and should be merged with health risks, as well as a good part of the 'problems' section, which should focus on the issues with fitting bras. Addationally, a big nono I see in the article is the linking to itself, or refering to itself.Honeymane^{is watching} 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing 'making cases' with describing points of view, and the evidence that supports or refutes them. You do your readers no service by that, nor are you considering what people come here looking for informtion about. You may have a point about organising the material. I suggest you read the guides on internal linking. Linking is the lifeblood of Wiki, its internl skeleton that holds it together. It facilitates the assimilation of ideas. Your removal of internal links was not helpful, and were restored where appropriate. Online encylopedias lend themselves particularly to this form of structuring. More traditional encylopedias made extensive use of q.v., vid. sup. and op. cit. etc., which could be very time consuming. I suggest you bring things up for discussion here before jumping in.

I was well aware that as the article has grown, inconsistencies have arisen, and these were actually slated for re-orgnisation in the near future. So, some of your suggestions have actually been implemented. Finally, the meaning of words is a complex poorly understood construct, and sometimes requires some experimentation. So some linguistic changes are also occurring throughout the article.

The sections on size and fit, which overlap are now somewhat cumbersome an are ripe for reorganisation. I was considering outsourcing some of the detail, which may not be for every reader. Mgoodyear 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"I suggest you bring things up for discussion here before jumping in." Wikipedia is not a democratic, I don't need to begin 'stuff' up here before editing for you to deem if it's worthy of this article or not. Internal linking, as I understand it, is between articles, not within articles, and not when the section you're linking to would have been already been read by user visiting the page to begin with, and the Myalgia sounds like a medical term, and if it is, it should be put into another article and added to.

Wikipedia is not an essay hosting service; taking a Point of View and supporting it with evidence is exactly what an essay is, and that violents the whole concept of non-point of view. I know what people are coming here to look for; the wikipedia article on Brassieres. A Free online Encyclopedia article on What it is, how it came to being, and any other information. However, that's all they're looking for, the bare facts, not opinions. Dressing them up or condensing them to "some people don't like bras because of this, this and this" isn't doing the readers any service ether.

Honeymane^{is watching} 07:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

While discussing controversial edits is, as you say, not required, it's still the polite and courteous thing to do. Working with your fellow editors is perferrable to edit warring and getting into a conflict with them. We are, after all, here for the same reasons, are we not? To build a great encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

I feel that Mgoodyear has contributed immensely to this article and that her changes are for the better. I also feel that, while there may be some NPOV issues and problems with the article being "in essay format" that Mgoodyear is also being extremely receptive to user comments and suggestions and is doing an excellent job to take care of these problems.

With that said, I do not feel that unilateral edits are the best way to contribute here. Look how far this article has come as a result of the hard work and time that Mgoodyear has put in, and consider respecting this editor's work and trying to work with her before deleting large sections of the text and labelling her as irrationally biased on the talk page. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not doubting her over 200 edits and additions to the page, this is what wikipedia is all about, however, I feel it's time to let someone else try to make the article better. Large sections of text need to be removed, reworded, or in so many words, edited. Respecting a editor's work does not mean you, I or Jimmy down the street can't improve the article. Up until a few days ago, this article was huge, it needs the removal of text. and Still does, to a point. What you seem to misunderstand is that Mgoodyear does not have exclusive editoral rights to this article. I can suggest things, but I can also act on them. I don't have to wait for Mgoodyear to add them, or not add them, depending on her own views on the matter. It is frustrating. Honeymane^{is watching} 08:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm stepping on your toes here. It's just my personal opinion that this article is best served by letting the main contributor address these things herself, with our input. Having one person (in this case an expert, she is a medical doctor and obviously has lots of background in women's studies) make the majority of content edits does a lot to keep the readability, accuracy, and flow of the article to a maximum. The reason I'm so strongly pushing for this is that Mgoodyear is reading over every single one of our suggestions and doing her best to incorporate them into the article. I'm sure that when she reads your input about the "words to avoid" tomorrow that she will take the time to go back through the article and reword the appropriate phrases to eliminate those words. And I think she's been doing a fantastic job of doing this, and even better than we'd be able to.

This should in no way preclude you from making edits to the article, and hell I couldn't stop you if I wanted to. I'm just saying... we seem to have a process here that's working. I think we should give Mgoodyear the benefit of the doubt her and let her work, with our input, to eliminate POV from the article and rewrite it into a more encyclopedic tone. Does this sound reasonable? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest that Mgoodyear is a doctor, nor would that make this user an expert on writing good articles. I believe in wikipedia being free, and there are no 'main' contributors. Wikipedia often wants it's users to be bold, and I believe this is one of those times.

While Mgoodyear's edits may have been in good faith, the overeditting of the page has lead to an article that is very much all Mgoodyear. It's unnatural and damages the article over all. This article is in need of other parties to edit it. Not Mgoodyear's edits. I've been reading the article over and over and the bias seems to be all over the place. And this bias can be very small, but have a large effect on the over all tone. For example, I removed some quotation marks from the introduction because it puts an undercurrent of doubt on that statement. Bras support the breasts, that's what there job. Women's studies tend to be womencentric (I would hope so at least) While this is fine for opinion essays and such, it's is not correct for an encyclopedia entry; and I get the feeling that Mgoodyear has spend so much time writing with this bias that she no longer notices it. Everyone has bias like this, that's why you need multiple viewpoints to remove it. Mgoodyear has given us excellent information, but we must be bold and edit it ourselves! Be Bold! Honeymane^{is watching} 09:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to debate my qualifications, resume or CV here. You can take it on face value or not as you please. So, ok you are a student, and I am senior faculty. That does not mean we cannot work together. It can be very easy to confuse bias with simply a view we do not agree with. Some of you comments suggest that you do not really understand the subject. It could be just semantics. Support implies something not capable of standing on its own, and is different to lift. Breasts do not fall off without a bra. Interesting thought - do bras have a 'job'? I don't understand your comments about women's studies - sure they look at things from a woman's viewpoint - and thereby redress balance. This article was biased prior to Nov 4, because it did not (in large) give voice to that perspective. A member of, say, the Democrats, or the British Labour Party, is not precluded from writing books or articles on history or politics. Nor should women be banned from writing on women's issues. If there is 'bias' it is because the evidence is strongly in one direction, with mainly myth in the other. I have done my best to provide citations for all the statements I have made, but I can't vouch for what was there before. In some cases I have managed to determine it was incorrect. There is lot of talk about Be Bold on Wiki: be careful that you know exactly what it means.

Do Cars have a 'job'? Bras have a function that they where designed and built to do; give external support to the breasts; whether of not to believe that they need this extra support is irrelevant.Honeymane

I think we are getting bogged down in semantics here. It's not a question of what I believe, it is a question of why we have bras in the first place, the answer to which is not as simple as some people might think. Mgoodyear 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias is just another way of saying view point. While Women studies may view and write events and articles from the POV of a women, rather then writing another view point into the article, you should be rewriting it so that it presents both view points in a neutral fashion. That's what NPOV is all about, and that's why your article is not meeting that standard. If the article is writen or implies: "There is more evidence against bras and is mostly myth for them (paraphrase}" then you need to rewrite it so that it is: "This is a Bra, it is designed to do ____ and _____, but this is disputed (reasons)" let people decide for themselves. ^{is watching} 04:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"Let people decide for themselves" - that is precisely what it is about. My viewpoint is irrelevant. Mgoodyear 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Francis, thanks for expanding 'types', I have made some minor changes to sync the two articles Mgoodyear 20:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit War

Unless someone knows a lot better than I, this seems a fundamental flaw in the whole Wiki concept, which depends on good will, cooperation and courtesy. In the absence of that, it requires an editor, or editorial team. It is discourteous to demolish other people's work to say the least. This discussion section is supposed to be for people who wish to collaborate on projects to make suggestions, and fix problems, not for imposing ideology. I note the breast article had to be locked recently. This article was coming together, just look at it historically since 2003, and has spun off a number of new articles, now it has sustained a major attack, on what appears to be ideological grounds. I don't think that is acceptable. Mgoodyear 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If Honeymane thinks it is still too long, we could consider doing some more outsourcing. Mgoodyear 20:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The wiki concept is, bascially, a homostasis system in the sense that over time, the amount of 'bad' edits are combated by 'good' edits, and reviewing, etc. Thus returning the system to a level of correctness.

History is bias, the good guys only win because they are the ones writing the history books when it's all over. Ideology is bias, if you think that my ideology, of reducing the amounts of bias in articles is bias, you are correct. but it in the interest of the articles as a whole. Honeymane^{is watching} 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have made yourself the unilateral arbiter of what is good and what is bad, and what is biased. I note you have never addressed the issue of 'bias' you are talking about. There are three sides to every story. On the other hand as editing proceeds, continuity and flow tends to suffer, and then some reorganisation is needed. Also moving, deleting and adding can create problems with redundancies, and both internal and external referencing, which needs to be checked for. Wiki is both dynamic and adaptive. Mgoodyear 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Bias statements and undertones:

• 'Claimed beneifits'
• Liberial use of the word 'Claimed' when ever describing and thing 'good' about the Brassiere.

Your description of the word claimed (which incidentally occur even in Featured Articles) is incorrect, nd incidentally biased. it implies two things, the level of evidence, and whether there is disagreement, it is used in discussion both of advantages and disadvantages (for instance it is used several times under 'health risks'. However your statement now clarifies your position, that you appear to believe this article is too critical of bras? anyway, the article is now 'claim'-free.

Mgoodyear 17:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• the 400X of the 'argument against' amount oof information.

It would help if you were more explicit. Mgoodyear 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

There is an unequal amount of supporting information for the two sides.Honeymane^{is watching} 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• the term 'humorous song' Brassiere#Etymology

Nothing to do with me - again you are blaming me for everything you do not like. If you insist we can arrange for it to be taken out. I never heard it, I imagine Ms Midler was trying to be humourous, she usually does. Anyway it really belongs in trivia, where it now is, minus 'humor'. Mgoodyear 18:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first statement in the history summary is more of a thesis; it would be more approrate for an article on that subject, bras may be part of this, but it's not really it's history.

Its not a thesis, its true, as in a concensus. If you want to understand bras, you have to understand not only breast biology, but also societal attitudes to women, and to their bodies, and breasts, and women's relationships with their breasts. Since bras are underwear they are largely governed by fashion, and changing outerwear has driven changes in bra design to be compatible. No serious workon bras could ignore that and have any credibility. Again I refer you to discussions by other editors in the past. Mgoodyear 18:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It reads like a thesis. It really has nothing to do with the history of the Bra, which should be only date back to the turn of the century, as well as the other earlier forms. It is suppost to be a Summary of the History of the Bra article. Indeed, the second line is somewhat off the topic of the History of Bras(period) these are statements better off in an article about Women's status and Fashion.

• The way the sections are arranged is somewhat bias, in a fashion; variations in sizing should be above difficulties. or dropped altogether, another redundent section.

The sections have arisen in a slightly haphazard way over three years. I stated several days ago that that sections dealing with construction, measurement, fitting, and size were due for a cleanup, because the various sections had grown independently, with resulting inconsistencies, redundancies and a lack of flow of ideas. There was also overlap with health. These sections have now been extensively rewritten, reorganised and pruned (sections moved out to sub-articles) Mgoodyear 21:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• The openning sentence of Health risks

What's wrong with that? Its true, even if paradoxical. Statements about what bras are supposed to do depend on them actually doing it. The evidence is overwhelming, especially for larger women, that they don't, so as a result they actually create the sorts of problems that they describe as helping.

Have you ever worn a bra (or gone bra shopping with a woman)? Mgoodyear 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The openning sentience shows what you believe on the topic. It would be better to start the section with "Because women..."

Thats part of the bias, a good part of the bias comes form the use of weasel words and sentence stucture of some sentences.

Honeymane^{is watching} 07:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

What????

Weasel words are words that create problems with the NPOV of the article.Honeymane^{is watching} 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I miss spoke, they are not weasel words, but they are words to avoid

Honeymane^{is watching}

Such as? Mgoodyear 21:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

the words in the article I posted? -Honeymane^{is watching} 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

O, good grief, why does this article have to be turned into a war zone and a place for personal vendettas, and imposition of personal beliefs? A few days ago someone suggested this article be nominated in the 'good article' category, now it looks like a construction yard. I think most readers arriving here, will now simply just go elsewhere. I will attempt to address some of these issues one by one, time permitting.

Mgoodyear 15:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I shall tag. then edit: you may want to use Wikipedia:Template messages Honeymane^{is watching} 01:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Style

Definitions and categories
Rather than debate definitions (eg lingerie) here, it is better to remove those terms. They have been shifted to a new section. and to avoid further disputes here, the terms are all referenced out, and people can have their discussions on those pages. I have addressed some of the deficiencies of 'Lingerie'. When faced with conflict it is often better to think laterally.

Ethnocentricity
Incidentally, Wiki also suffers from ethnocentricity. In terms of background research for this article I have read the related articles in several other languages, and where they appear to add insight, added interwiki links. remember this is a universal enclyclopedia designed to appeal to an international audience.

Apostrophes
Terms placed within apostrophes are there for good reasons, because it implies a usage that may be different from the prima facie meaning. 'Support' is a good example. This is not really what bras are designed for. The literature criticises the term as implying deficiency, which is not proven. It is a marketing ploy. The word lift has been substituted. This is in keeping with Uplift, probably the most influential work on this subject.

Male bra
Over the last three years this has ben a divisive topic, with frequent inserts and removals. Again a more evolved approach is to remove it, and shift those debates to the now separate article. I can assure you from experience, dealing with men who want to wear bras is not as simple as you might think.

Social and cultural aspects of bras
One critic on this page is probably never going to be satisfied till all references to the cultural aspects of bras are removed. However I suspect that is a minority view. The very length and nature of the discussions on this article about a piece of cloth, reveal the deep cultural overtones. Any serious reading on the topic will reveal its perceived iconic status and describe how it became a flashpoint for social commentary.

In social sciences, unlike positivist biophysical sciences, particularly qualitative and interpretive work, it is important to listen and observe, and have no preformed hypotheses. any serious student of bras will quickly identify the inner tension between women and their bras, and the attraction-repulsion dichotomy. To ignore all this work, would be to do a disservice to readers, and insult their intelligence. It may be possible to outsource this, but it does seem so fundamental, that I am reluctant to do so at this time. On the other hand, it does seem to be causing more problems between contributors than anything else. I also note that even some 'Featured Articles' include debates. For clarification, other editors above, have asked for more emphasis on this subject.

None of the above precludes further attention to detail.

My role
Elsewhere on the internet, it has been suggested by a critic on these pages, that every single edit of mine be removed (that is to revert to the version prior to 17:51 on November 4th.). That raises some issues around objectivity and bias, although the remarks were actually directed at someone else who has not edited this article, but who I have consulted. It may help to point out that many of the things that have been criticised here over the last few days, actually predate November 4.

Mgoodyear 17:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If they do not support the bra, what do they do? As far as I can see, the term does not imply deficiency, it's merely the function. Using apostrophes, as I pointed out, does however imply that is not really what they do.

debated elsewhere, also removed Mgoodyear 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

IE: I'm going to the 'store'.

Am I really going to the store, or somewhere else? Should I replace the word for another to get the correct meaning?

We shouldn't keep the reader guessing. Lift is okay, but try not to be inflentenced too much by opinion works.

culture and such

I support the idea of including such information in the article, but you're going about it the wrong way. Presenting opinions is not the correct way of doing something on a NPOV encyclopedia. If you really must present them however, I suggest that you place all of Beneifits of bras throught out the article, then present the Critism of Bras as it's own section, rather then including it in the culture section.

IE

• Culture
• Health risks
• critisms

or

• Culture
• critisms+health risks Honeymane

Interesting idea, which gave some thought to. It might open up criticism that there is only criticism. The content has varied considerably over the last few weeks, and may change againMgoodyear 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my comments; having known that A) Your consultent is one of, or indeed the most, poster on forums she owns [[1]], I could easly question your or her objectivity as well. I support brafreedom and such, and I don't really have any love for the bra, I do, however, believe highly in wikipedia and it's standards of articles. And Having read many subjects on the Going Braless forums, I know that most of it is bias in favorof brafreedom and distaste for the bra. However. Both are opinions and both are not needed on wikipedia. I'm only trying to improve the article as a whole. the reason I suggested the revert was because you've edited the whole article and created undertones of anti-braism, Although I'm sure you didn't mean to do so. Reverting it would have made it easier, but that's not really the correct way of ding things and I am sorry.

Suggestion; Change the words bra---to-->brassiere

Honeymane^{is watching} 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean Liberty, she does not own anything, the members raised the money to run Goingbraless, she is an admin. See my comments above, about occupation and competence to write. A prostitute can write excellent articles on the good and bad things about prostitution. I did raid their excellent bibliography of articles though. I only provide medical and scientific advice to them, and occasionally mediate disputes. I would not say they were biased, they are actually a support group. Officially they support freedom of choice. naturally women who are having problems are drawn to them. Brafreedom exists and deserves to be acknowledged, but not promoted here. I am not anti-bra, s a professional I cannot afford to be. But I do provide advice for those who need to know if there is some medical necessity. It is not so much undertones as the evidence. Hopefully you will read the numerous sources and references now provided. If you find contradictory ones, please supply them. Parts of this article a few weeks ago read like advertising material from the manufacturers. Actually to respond to your calls for balance, I had to actually cite manufacturers, because there are so few articles in favour of bras! Mgoodyear 01:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Illustrations

A comment was made that this article lacks illustrations. I don't pictures of bras are helpful at all. Some of the technical material is nicely illustrated in medical and scientific journals. They may let us use them with attribution, if we contact them. Also a photograph of a 'bra-burning' demonstration, might add something, if in the public domain.

I loaded a few onto a website, and linked them, but they were removed.
Mgoodyear 21:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia welcomes Pictures, as this is not a pen and paper encyclopedia, and it only costs time and energy to generate an article, it is for that reason that wikipedia welcomes image. I'm no expert on the subject of images, however, I do believe that the reason your links where removed is because that wikipedia perfers it's users to upload the images, so the information can be posted (like the copyright information).Honeymane^{is watching} 01:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Consistency and Coordination (Breast)

It is very important that this and the Breast article be tightly linked, consistent and not redundant. Therefore the breast information here should be linked and kept to the minimal to make the brassiere article make sense. And vice versa. Mgoodyear 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

External links , sources, references

Sally B deleted 3 sources, without discussion. Please don't remove source material. It is unfair to people whose work was drawn upon to construct the article, and allows people to determine if theur work was used fairly, and not plagiarised. Citing all sources used is an important part of scholarly style. In case you were concerned about the plcement, I moved them to 'sources' to be more explicit.
Mgoodyear 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, you seem rather one sided to a few sites and books, it would be nice to see some other links, such as using a Book like Gray's Anatomy or such for the biological info. You are suppost to be a doctor, surelly you have access to better material then a website for the breast anatomy! Honeymane^{is watching} 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see five academic journals used as references. In addition, this article has more sources than most other articles on Wikipedia. I don't see what it is you're complaining about. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not complaining, I'm just suggesting.Honeymane^{is watching} 03:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitions and categories

Defining the bra, and its relation to various classes of garment is always tricky, lacking a standardised system and having many terms. Some of this could be left to separate articles on lingerie, underwear etc. I just could not go for 'bedroom' as a definition. I think the link to lingerie (see OED) is problematic, it is poorly researched, and places undue emphasis on the erotic. I did make some minor changes there a while ago.
Mgoodyear 18:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why we listed all three... undergarment, foundation garment, and lingerie. That covers the "sexual" aspect without placing undue emphasis, wouldn't you say? —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it really is all that complex Mgoodyear; it's an undergarment (assuming that we define it as being clothing next to the skin) and lingerie (refering to women's undergarments, although, because of the male bra...) Foundation garments are not really garments, but a set of garments designed to alter the human body. This isn't Rocket science! Honeymane^{is watching} 22:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not arguing, just saying that in real life, the collective terms are frequently used interchangebly, and there is no one universal standard definition. Which does not really matter tht much anyway.Mgoodyear 01:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I reviewed Brassiere for WP:GA status and I'm afraid I don't think it meets the criteria at this point. Specifically, it's under NPOV dispute; the History section is unreferenced; the lead section is disjointed and the last paragraph is mostly redundant (sounds like a couple of lead sections were combined); and the Biological and social roles section often reads like a list of factoids rather than a coherent article. The photos are good and the Mechanical principles section was interesting and not something I would have thought of. There's a lot of good information here. It could be a really good article, it's just not quite there. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thank you for your valuable feedback, and I look forward to bringing Brassiere back to GA in a month or two! —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to address the comment on the lead section, basically by gathering the material which was there into 3 main paragraphs, which a) define the bra, b) say what it's for, and c) discuss the need for it and its cultural and political significance. --Stephen Burnett 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could help! I think the new organization of the lead section is much more intuitive. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I've moved the last paragraph into the Etymology section - it concerns the origin of the name, so that, if anywhere, is surely where it ought to go. I think it ended up at the bottom because someone considered it too frivolous to appear early in the article. there seem to be two possible answers: remove it from the article altogether (which would be a pity), or move the Etymology section down. It seems to me that it's less important than history, although kind of related, so maybe it could go below that? --Stephen Burnett 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is generally the first section in an article that has such a section though, isn't it? I believe that's why we moved it up originally. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK - best to leave it where it is then. --Stephen Burnett 08:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think its best at the top. - Francis Tyers · 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am currently attempting a rewrite of section 6.2 - I don't believe the overall divsion FOR - AGAINST works well, and it's better to present the arguments under each heading, ie health, functional, fashion and cultural. In effect this mirrors the structure of the intro. --Stephen Burnett 09:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Good work man. The article is really coming along. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Article

seems to conflict w/:

"The first modern brassiere to receive a patent and gain wide acceptance was a bra invented by a New York socialite named Mary Phelps Jacob in 1913."

Caresse Crosby.

Polly Jacob Peabody.

Thank You.

[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"it is difficult to either prove or disprove this theory, as with a number of the other statements made about possible harmful effects"

this phrase was actually in the article! Translated: Bras are a bad idea - that is scientific fact - there's no real evidence for it - but it is scientific fact! Spute 19:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Efforts should be made to guard the article against undue weight of extreme minority points of view. The bra is not a unisex item of clothing any more than a skirt is. A skirt may be worn by men, but the overwhelming majority of skirt wearers are women. So, a bra may be worn by men, but the overwhelming majority of wearers are women. Our article on Human describes us as "Humans, or human beings, are bipedal apes" despite the fact that not all humans have two legs. Our article on Bras should describe them as being for women, despite the fact that some men wear them. - Francis Tyers · 14:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

A Normal Genome does however, have the coding for two legs; they also have coding for foreskins, even if tons of people in the USA cut that part off. In that sense, the article gives 'undue weight' to people who have foreskins, if they are a minority within the USA.

However, Wikipedia would prefer to have a non-american View point. But that's beside the point. I can not see how putting two words in the introduction gives undue weight. If you ask me, it seems sexist to break off the male section to Male bra, seeing as it's such a small section. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 18:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all sexism. A normal man does not have breasts, or require the use of a bra. My analogy stands. Men need bras either by a genetic defect (e.g. they are too fat for genetic reasons), or for human caused reasons (e.g. they ate too much and didn't exercise). This goes the same for legs, someone may have no legs because of a genetic defect, or because they had them lopped off. Eitherwhichway, it is not a normal state of affairs. I should imagine that focussing on the male aspects of bras actually favours the United States point of view. I can't think of any other countries where they would be so popular. That said, I have altered the intro to read "the figure", so now we aren't discrimating against men or any other animals, plants or machines that do not require bras. - Francis Tyers · 20:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Normal have Breasts, Breasts are not a 'unique' female organ, which is why you can have A-cup breasts. Men uselly have A-cup breasts. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in my country (pay attention to the actual 'A cup', not the 'enhanced' photos). - Francis Tyers · 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[2] better images--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which show that men do not "usually" have A cup breasts. - Francis Tyers · 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I searched the internet for "male bra", some of the things I saw prompt me to add the fact that some males may require bras due to wanting to deliberately grow breasts, although this does not effect my analogy. There are also people who choose to have their limbs amputated. - Francis Tyers · 20:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do keep in mind that a Google search for male bra only turns up around 500 hits, and that an article dealing with solely this use of the garment already exists at male bra. The changes are acceptable, but in general I think they reduce the quality of the article. – Lantoka (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. - Francis Tyers · 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How can adding a more accuate wording reduce the 'quality' of the article. You already have problems with the POV in this article, and statements like the one just removed are why. In anycase, I believe that Male Brassiere should be merged with this article. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did anybody mention a picture dude? Did you even read the thread before replying?

As for my qualms with POV in this article... I don't really have many. In general, I think that the article needs some work to make it sound more encyclopedic but that its content is fine. The only POV I have an issue with is—you guessed it—undue weight being placed on the male bra.

As for splitting male bra off into its own article, why exactly do you think that article should be merged into the main article? It's common practice on Wikipedia to give minority viewpoints their own article so that they do not have to be removed entirely, which quite honestly is appropriate here. – Lantoka (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First, opps, a random thought must of entered my mind when typing, it happens.

As I've stated before, you clearly can not see the bia with in the article, look up about one or two headings; statements like that are in the article, and not all of them are so in your face.

As for the Male brassiere, the article is on Brassieres, as an article of clothing. There is no reason to exclude the male brassiere. In fact, the article basically says there the same thing as 'normal' brassieres. so why exclude them? (if you ask me it's because you feel that the bra is an importent part of 'female history' and pointing out that bras are also worn by males would hurt the arguement that Females are being repressed by the male gender (with this article of clothing); kind of hard to justify the whole 'not really needed' when males need brassieres to support there breasts)--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So you're trying to make a point then? - Francis Tyers · 21:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Point, verb, 2. To bring something to notice" [3] Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 21:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By arguing semantics you are clearly missing his point. He's saying that you're trying to make a WP:POINT, which is disruptive to the encyclopedia and generally frowned upon. – Lantoka (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can not see how suggesting a merge is disruptive. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Male Bra

What is with the constant reverts of the Male Brassiere part, men wear bras as listed. BOGART67